The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[RockyTop85]

Yeah, I was asking if it really happened. It does mean she's not fit for the office but doesn't mean they shouldn't confirm her.

I actually think the Senators should stick to constitutional questions. "Mr/Mrs nominee, what exactly is your interpretation of x amendment/section clause"?

You think Barrett was unfit because she didn’t know that protest/redress was part of the 1st amendment without looking?

Being a judge or attorney has very little to do with rote memorization of the constitution. There are a lot of lawyers who can memorize rules of evidence. Doesn’t mean they make good objections in trial.

If she had a case involving that issue she can look at the document, look at the tradition of how that clause has been applied since the founding, she could read the parties’ and amici briefs, listen to the arguments, and it would be completely within bounds to look at what others have written about it. For Barrett, she would probably look at the history of how protest and redress were treated at common law before ratification.

Memorizing the document qualifies you to be a contestant on Jeopardy. I’d rather have somebody who can synthesize that information, evaluate the quality of the arguments being made, and do a good job of determining what after-effects will follow from a given decision.

Sadly, it’s turned into such a circus that they won’t answer any questions that give any insight into that. The fact that she went into as much detail as she has on how she conducts sentencing is unusual. But the Supreme Court doesn’t really hand down sentences, so it’s not especially relevant.

It seems like Jackson hasn’t written much that demonstrates those capacities the way Barrett and Kagan had. She hasn’t been on a circuit court very long the way Kavanaugh had. District Court judges don’t do the same things that appellate court judges do. It’s basically just her work on the sentencing commission and her appellate advocacy. I think she’s “qualified” in that she checks the academic and career path boxes that other judges have checked and brings some unique perspectives, but if the outcome weren’t basically assured by partisanship, she’d benefit from answering more of these questions instead of dodging them.

 

[hog88]

You think Barrett was unfit because she didn’t know that protest/redress was part of the 1st amendment without looking?

Being a judge or attorney has very little to do with rote memorization of the constitution. There are a lot of lawyers who can memorize rules of evidence. Doesn’t mean they make good objections in trial.

If she had a case involving that issue she can look at the document, look at the tradition of how that clause has been applied since the founding, she could read the parties’ and amici briefs, listen to the arguments, and it would be completely within bounds to look at what others have written about it. For Barrett, she would probably look at the history of how protest and redress were treated at common law before ratification.

Memorizing the document qualifies you to be a contestant on Jeopardy. I’d rather have somebody who can synthesize that information, evaluate the quality of the arguments being made, and do a good job of determining what after-effects will follow from a given decision.

Sadly, it’s turned into such a circus that they won’t answer any questions that give any insight into that. The fact that she went into as much detail as she has on how she conducts sentencing is unusual. But the Supreme Court doesn’t really hand down sentences, so it’s not especially relevant.

I do think any nominee for a federal judgeship should have the BORs memorized.

 

[85SugarVol]

I do think any nominee for a federal judgeship should have the BORs memorized.

I think we used to memorize them in the 5th grade.

 

[hog88]

I think we used to memorize them in the 5th grade.

I don't remember what grade but I remember having to memorize them in Civics Class.

 

[85SugarVol]

I don't remember what grade but I remember having to memorize them in Civics Class.

They should be posted at the entrance of every school.

 

[RockyTop85]

They should be posted at the entrance of every school.

And no calculators in calculus!

 

[Boca Vol]

And no calculators in calculus!

I was a whiz in math all the way until trig & calc!!! That lost me.

 

[85SugarVol]

It would have been a risky but potentially rewarding political maneuver, for Senate Republicans to illuminate a contrast between themselves and Senate Democrats by conducting an intense and thorough, but still civil, examination of the nominee's credentials, focused exclusively on philosophy, judicial history and Constitutional interpretation.

Instead, Senators Graham and Cruz have taken Republicans down the familiar path of revenge and settling scores with Democrats over the unfair treatment of Kavanaugh and other conservative nominees. While there are short term gains to be made with the Republican Party base by following this approach, ultimately, it only serves to illustrate that there is no difference between the two parties. Indeed, there are no adults in the room.

With all the shots Democrats are currently taking, this could have been a very painful body blow from the Republicans.

They could have been in the catbird’s seat for the next confirmation hearing, and free to do whatever they wanted with all the pressure on the Democrats.

And yes, they could have shown America that they are adults, capable of navigating us through all of this mess.

Just so dumb, and so shortsighted.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Ketanji Brown Jackson, by not giving a simple definition answer to the word "woman" ... Eli Bremer says "how can you protect something that you can't define?" Eli Bremer says ... "If she's confirmed, I have no confidence in her ability to protect women & their rights".

Former Olympian slams Ketanji Brown Jackson's refusal to define 'woman' amid Lia Thomas controversy

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

After Sen. Kennedy's Questioning, Constitutional Law Expert Reminds Us Who Really Chose KBJ

The above tweet is saying Biden's nominee is from the warped liberal mind of Ron Klain.

 

[Grand Vol]

Lindsay is an attention seeking, loud mouth, camera whore.

Maybe...

But is he wrong?

 

[Velo Vol]

Sadly, it’s turned into such a circus that they won’t answer any questions that give any insight into that. The fact that she went into as much detail as she has on how she conducts sentencing is unusual. But the Supreme Court doesn’t really hand down sentences, so it’s not especially relevant.

I was trying to think of what a screening session would look like if they were solely trying to determine if a nominee is qualified to do what a justice actually does. Some kind of moot court exercise where he/she walks through how precedents apply to a hypothetical legal issue? It sure wouldn't make for good TV sound bytes.

 

[85SugarVol]

I was trying to think of what a screening session would look like if they were solely trying to determine if a nominee is qualified to do what a justice actually does. Some kind of moot court exercise where he/she walks through how precedents apply to a hypothetical legal issue? It sure wouldn't make for good TV sound bytes.

How many windows are there in New York City

 

[DC_Vol]

He's still better than any of you communists

 

[Grand Vol]

Kennedy is a national treasure.

 

[midnight orange]

Who would your perfect politician be? You're obviously so superior, maybe you should run.

Marsha Blackburn

 

[volinbham]

may have already been discussed but her answer to the definition of a woman implied:

1. it is determined by biology; not personal choice - runs counter to the prevailing narrative
2. if it is not determined by biology then did Biden really nominate a "woman" for the seat?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Seems funny things going on by Democrats in hiding reports on information ....

 

[AirVol]

Nobody ever asked Kavanaugh if he liked beer. He volunteered that he did.

Dims were screeching in Kavanaugh’s hearing, believe all women.

In Browns hearing, she doesn’t know what a woman is, yet you Dims want her on the SC and she can’t fight for women if she doesn’t know.

 

[McDad]

I was trying to think of what a screening session would look like if they were solely trying to determine if a nominee is qualified to do what a justice actually does. Some kind of moot court exercise where he/she walks through how precedents apply to a hypothetical legal issue? It sure wouldn't make for good TV sound bytes.

I would like to hear their understanding and thoughts on the Constitution. I think their opinions on why the framers came to the compromises and what was the intention behind would be important. Maybe their thoughts on recent decisions or controversial decisions. Or, how they attempt to balance their constitutional role without over reaching.

 

[85SugarVol]

may have already been discussed but her answer to the definition of a woman implied:

1. it is determined by biology; not personal choice - runs counter to the prevailing narrative
2. if it is not determined by biology then did Biden really nominate a "woman" for the seat?

Your first point is an interesting one for sure. If she was on script I guess she would have deferred to a Sociologist?

 

[C-south]

Your first point is an interesting one for sure. If she was on script I guess she would have deferred to a Sociologist?

More like a psychologist.

 

[85SugarVol]

More like a psychologist.

“Social construct”

 

[OHvol40]

Ketanji Brown Jackson, by not giving a simple definition answer to the word "woman" ... Eli Bremer says "how can you protect something that you can't define?" Eli Bremer says ... "If she's confirmed, I have no confidence in her ability to protect women & their rights".

Former Olympian slams Ketanji Brown Jackson's refusal to define 'woman' amid Lia Thomas controversy

They’re interviewing former Olympians for this? Wonder what Kaitlyn Jenner’s take on it is, and if you would post that opinion too? Lol